User talk:Anthony on Stilts

I linked the article as requested, but you can just as easily do it yourself. To redirect a page to another page, simply add the folowing text: #REDIRECT [[Syrian Malabar Nasrani]]. In the example the page that the text is placed on will forward the user to

kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your new image and I've appreciated it. I would like to give you some remarks about point (1) (you named 1=Portuguese Missionaries/Goa Inquisition).

• It is not correct (or it is a POV) to have the Malankara Church to go straight on from Nasrani, and not to have the Syro-Chaldean Church to go straight on from Nasrani. In fact before the 17th century the tradition of the Christian in India was East-Syriac, i.e. Syro-Chaldean. All Indian bishops in the 16th enter in communion with the RCC and no bishop was available to consecrate a not-catholic bishop. The solution was found by the sending of Mar Gregoros Abdul Jaleel form the West-Syrian Patriarch of Antioch, but with the consequence that: "In 1665 Mar Thoma 1 turned to the Patriarch of Antioch..he and his successors permanently turned away from from the patriarchs of Babylon and submitted to the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch "[1]. So I kindly ask you to find some NPOV solution in the diagram, like to indicate the Nasrani in a different color from blue or red and to place Nasrani line in the middle between Malankara and Syro-Chaldean.
• Further, the Syro-Chaldean Church has a name:
  Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
• the term "Portuguese Missionaries/Goa Inquisition" is both not correct and extremely partial (it is a strong POV): i suggest to change it with something less POV, as "1653 Coonan Cross Oath" or "1665 Mar Gregorius Abdul Jaleel from Antioch confirms the consecration of Marthoma I"

I know that it is not easy to keep Wiki NPOV, and I will appreciate your efforts. A ntv (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Nasrani tradition was not originally West-Syriac, but do you have any evidence that it was East-Syriac? According to the information in the articles, the Portuguese burnt some of the Nasrani scriptures, including the Thomasine literature such as the Acts of Thomas; the Acts of Thomas, like much of the Thomasine literature, is a fairly gnostic text, and therefore its use in the church suggests that it had some degree of gnostic tendencies, which wouldn't correspond that well to East-Syriac liturgy or theology.

The diagram isn't about Bishops, its about Churches.

The Portuguese missionaries, and their inquisition, tried to forcibly change Nasrani liturgy and tradition; therefore the results of their actions should branch away from the Nasrani line, rather than continue it. Further, those who defied (Coonan Cross) the Portuguese must represent those who wanted to continue their earlier traditions, so they must closely represent a continuation of the Nasrani tradition; therefore they should continue the Nasrani line.

The Nasrani line is neither blue or red - its purple. I chose red to represent Catholicism, as its the traditional Catholic colour. The Nasrani line could never be red as it represents events prior to Roman Catholicism arriving with the Portuguese.

The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is the current name of that branch. Can you evidence that it had this name prior to the 1814 split, as if not it can only be described with the general term Syro-Chaldean?

Changing the phrase "Portuguese Missionaries/Goa Inquisition" to "1653 Coonan Cross Oath" or "1665 Mar Gregorius....." would have the effect of implying that the Malankara Syrian church represents a deviation from Roman Catholicism, rather than the true state of affairs which is that Roman Catholicism only came into the area with the Portuguese. Exactly what has persistence of vision got to do with anything anyway?

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 08:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Wiki we shall not research to find the historical truth, but simply to list the POVs. And for sure there are two different POV: the both the Malankara Church and the Malabar Church claim to be the direct successors of the Nasrani.

About your remarks, still the liturgy of the Malabar Church is East-Syrian (for example they still use the anaphora if Addai and Mari), and for sure the Portugueses did not introduced it at all (on the contrary as you said they opposed it trying to change it in the Latin Rite, but the ancient liturgy still survives). About the situation of the Christian india in the middle age, I suggest you to read the book I quoted before: it clearly explain that the Nasrani heritage is mainly East-Syrian, not Antiochian [2]. About the present name of the Malabar Church, the term "Malabar" is the ancient term used also by the Portogueses to indicate the region of the India where Christians lived, and it is by far more ancient than the term Syro-Chaldean (never used by Catholics for India) that should at least be replaced with a more correct East-Syrian (but these are references to the rite, not to the Church name, that is "Malabar Church", or Malabar Catholic Church"). It is easy to find evidence of the ancient name: look for example this 1694 book: [the history of the Church of Malabar http://books.google.it/books?id=9Ds3AAAAMAAJ&printsec=toc#PPP7,M1].

Please remember that the Nasrani on about 1514 welcomed the Portugueses and the union happened without any use of force. Only later, on about the 1580-99 the Portuguese unfortunately started to get a change of rite from East-Syrian to Latin and forced it. This caused the reaction of Independence of the 1653 Coonan Cross Oath, and only later (in 1665) a West-Syrian Church (with bishops coming from Antioch) was erected. The present Malankara Church has not structural, liturgical, bishop continuity with the Nasrani Church: the only continuity is the will of indipendence. If you look at the period between 1514 and 1663 the only Church existing was the one (of ancient East Syrian rite, the Malabar Church) under the control of Portugueses.

I leave you to find the graphical solution in your image, but it shall be NPOV while now it is POV, that is not acceptable. I don't ask you to be persuaded that the Malabar line is straight on from the Nasrani, but simply to be NPOV in Wiki listing all the claims. A ntv (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this 'persistence of vision' business you keep going on about? Its non-sequitur.

Malankara Church and Malabar Church are ambiguous terms. The Malankara Jacobite Church and Malabar Independent Church are both Syrian Orthodox, while the Syro-Malabar Church and Syro-Malankara Church are both Catholic. You should specify which you mean; three of those four have a shared history until around 1742, two of which have a shared history until 1926.

A religion imposed by force on the natives, during which imposition native scriptures are burnt, can in no way claim to be a direct continuation of the native faith, in contrast to the natives who opposed it.

Native Americans initially welcomed the European settlers, but that doesn't mean their lands were not taken by force. Christianity was outlawed in the early 4th century; so does that mean that any Christianity since the 4th century is a direct continuation of traditional Roman Religion, rather than of 3rd century Christianity? Just because something is imposed by force and becomes the official 'only thing' doesn't make it a continuation of the earlier thing, nor does it stop rebellions against that imposition being a more direct continuation of the earlier thing.

google.it is italian. I'd trust academic sources myself, not internal church opinions.

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point for wiki is NOT to judge the past nor even find the truth by research. It is simply to list ALL the POVs in order to try to be NPOV. That is the reason I ask you to edit your image: it does NOT explain all POVs. In the visual digram, as the one you did, who is on the straight line seems to be the "true-continuation". I kindly ask you to realize that there are other claims different than yours (and internal church opinions are enough to realize that there are other claims), and NOT to judge which claim is the true-one, but simply list ALL of them (graphically it means to have no church goes straight on from the origin).

And if you look for some historical evidence I suggest you read some academic texts (I've quoted a scholar text edited by the Oxford University Press that is for sure not a Catholic or a Church published). By the way our understating of the past shall not prevent us from listing all POVs, also the one we consider wrong. A ntv (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, why do you use CAPS LOCK text all the time? It reads like the rantings of some internet conspiracy claimant. And can you write out persistence of vision in full? Jargon-obsession really doesn't make for good article writing.

Different than is bad grammar, its different to or differs from. Think of it this way:

1. Christianity emerges in the near east
2. Rome imposes Roman religion by law and violence
3. After a few decades, the Christians gather together, and defy Rome.
4. In the 5th century, there are Christians

You would seem to be claiming that the 5th century Christians were a "true-continuation" of traditional Roman religion. Now I can find plenty of citable Oxford University Press books that do claim that it is a deviant form of Hellenic mythology, but....

And rather than claiming that it should be I that should read academic texts, why don't you go and cite something that's a neutral respected academic source?

And mere listing alternative possibilities is giving undue weight. Its like treating Neo-Nazi opinions on World War II as an equally valid history.

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you know this, but POV stands for "Point of View", not "Persistence of Vision". There is a policy concerning it:

WP:NPOV. Use of this acronym is perfectly acceptable on talk pages. It's true that "Jargon-obsession really doesn't make for good article writing", but use of acronyms is reasonable on talk pages. BTW, (See, there's another one) I came here to ask you to provide page references when you cite a book. One fully cited reference is better than three incomplete ones, which cannot be easily checked. Paul B (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it really too much to just say Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Use of acronyms really shows absolutely no respect for people from different cultures to your own. BTW, for example, could mean 'British Traditional Wicca', and a member of that society would regard it as referring to that rather than whatever you mean, presuming that you aren't referring to Wicca, of course. Can people really be so unable to write out a short phrase in full? Anthony on Stilts (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending that you don't know what people mean in order to 'get one over' on other editors is not productive. You know very well from the context that neither "Persistence of Vision" nor "British Traditional Wicca" could have been meant, and even a British Wiccan optician wouldn't imagine that either could possibly have been intended. Anyway, as I say , my main purpose concerned your addition of footnotes (I was specifically thinking of the reerences to Aquinas). It is of far more importance. Can people really be so unable to write out a short reference in full? Paul B (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really have an attitude there. Don't assume things about people you don't know. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's construct a text template that can be used in all six churches until the Coonan Cross event. That way, we won't have to continually update each of the six churches for the timeframe from the arrival of St. Thomas. We can just update the template. Better yet,we can fork much of the history from the template itself, so their will be a separate article but all the articles will have the same basic information. Student7 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking if there was a way to move the shared-history content to the general

What is a text template? Something like {{

Content will be mostly up to you. I will just help will the editing and explaining to the other editors. That can come later. (having said that, they don't like articles "orphaned" too long! ). How does that sound? Student7 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have done to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church what I proposed above. Please note. This is definitely not the final content. It is merely the proposed structure for the change. The final content is up to you. The template is Template:Indian Christian History 52-1653. This would be placed in all six or whatever articles on the individual churches, replacing whatever lead history is there.

The "summary" can be changed in the template. The history itself can be changed (or totally replaced if you want. I merely picked a recent early history you had worked on and used that. You may prefer to replace the big history with the one from

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

which is fine.

Note that once you/we have this stabilized, we can do the same with each of the remaining five splits, one template, one shared history each. Not quite as critical for the last two, but still kind of nice. Student7 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a long look through all the templates I can find, and they all seem to be little summary boxes of one kind or another. I'm not sure they are supposed to be used for content itself.

Wouldn't it be better to just incorporate the content into

I don't see that each of the summaries needs to be exactly the same. I can see the value in the summary sections having greater coverage of the particular details of the shared history pertinent to the particular church in question. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why wouldn't the summaries be the same from the supposed founding of the church by St. Thomas through the Coonan Cross incident? There may have been non-church groups for whom a common history would not be appropriate (...Nasrani?), but why not all the churches which held a common history?

The idea of the template is to be able to be flexible in the short run about what is presented in the history summary in each article and what portion is permanently forked to "Common Seven Church History." So if someone disagrees, we can make one change in the template for all seven articles without having to maintain each one separately.

Text templates are most often used for shorter material (representatives to the legislature, for example). I haven't run across anything quite like this before. But it can be justified. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that the summaries should be 'different in position' I just mean 'different in what is included or excluded'. Up to the Coonan Cross incident I agree they will be pretty similar, but as its a summary, and there isn't that much going on before then, that's going to be a comparatively brief description.

But after Coonan Cross there's a lot of history there, and some of it is more relevant to some churches than others, for example, what do the

I'm not sure I'm all that comfortable creating a type of template that has no precedent. Is there anywhere that you can get advice on that? Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony on Stilts has made a lot of corrections to a number of articles relating to Malankara Church, in good faith. But in some areas I find it difficult to agree with him.

In the Infobox of

I have noticed that you have not seen the details of the case Mar Dionysius v Mar Thomas Athanasius (O.S.No.439 of 1054, from 1879 to July 12, 1889) and so you have removed it from the article Mar Thoma Church. What is the reason for removing that paragraph? Action: I am reinstating that statement, because it is true.

In the introductory part it is given that

I am trying to find some details about the relationship of Malankara Church with the Church of Antioch. It is often said that there came bishops from Antioch, before the arrival of Portuguese. Were they ordained people or simply tourists or visitors? Any idea? So far I did not get any verifiable evidences for this matter.

When did

Before 1876, a few bishops arrived from Antioch. Who invited them to Malankara? Why did they come? Who paid their passage and other expenses?

To consecrate Mar Thoma I, Mar Gregorios Abdul Jaleel arrived in 1665. Recently it came to light a document to prove that he was from another Church. I have not yet seen that 17th century document and so cannot comment. Do you have any documents to show that this was from Antioch?

As per records in archives, a bishop named Mar Ivanios from Antioch had arrived in Malabar in 1747 and he was deported by the King of Cochin in 1751? Why was he deported?

Who had invited the nine persons including two bishops (arrived in 1751 in a Dutch ship) from Antioch? Why were Mar Thoma V and the Malankara Church had to pay a heavy sum for their passage? Remember that Mar Thoma V was arrested and put in jail for not paying their passage.

Please base your reply on references from Archives or from excavations or from books written during that particular period or from similar reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neduvelilmathew (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SineBot for reminding.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Dionysius v Mar Thomas Athanasius - I don't recollect deleting this. I'm not keen on deleting stuff really, even if it seems like nonsense. I suspect I probably just moved it somewhere else in the article; the article structure was a bit of a mess, bits of the history scattered between other sections, so I re-arranged it to be more coherent.

The Malankara Church has been part of the Oriental Orthodox tradition since at least the 17th century. The Mar Thoma Church emerged from the Malankara Church, and therefore its heritage is Oriental Orthodox; that's as opposed to having Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Protestantism, as its heritage. In other words, in the past, the people who became the Mar Thoma Church were part of Oriental Orthodoxy. I don't see why that's controversial; Abraham Malpan was originally ordained as an Oriental Orthodox priest. Action:corrected.

note: Orthodox is not used here in reference to the name of the church, but to the fact that it was part of Oriental Orthodoxy.

also, Orthodox here isn't a word meaning 'true'. Its just part of the name of a division of Christianity. The main divisions are:

• Protestantism - includes the Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.
• Roman Catholicism
• Eastern Orthodoxy - includes the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Old Believers
• Oriental Orthodoxy - includes the Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolicism, Coptic Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox
• Assyrian Catholicism - essentially just the Assyrian Church of the East

The Malankara Church is part of the Syrian Orthodox group, and therefore is Oriental Orthodox. Its just a name; its Syrian Orthodox as opposed to Syrian Catholic, for example. Its not about who is 'orthodox' rather than 'heterodox'. That's why it has an upper case O.

The Metran Kakshi isn't just the Mar Thoma. Its the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The Malankara Syrians did split but the split wasn't about full independence; it was about autocephaly. Both sides agreed that the Antiochian patriarch had liturgical authority, but the Bava Kakshi wanted him to have administrative authority too; the Metran Kakshi disagreed, wanting autocephaly (in layman's terms, they wanted administrative independence - not full independence). When the split finally occurred, they renamed as follows:

• Bava Kakshi =>
  Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church
• Metran Kakshi => Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

Both are Syrian Orthodox, and both submit to the Patriarch of Antioch on liturgical matters, but the Malankara Orthodox Syrians administer themselves on administrative matters.

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed on the article's talk pages, that your behaviour on this matter has been complained about before. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on this matter should be carried out on the Article's talk page only. I will delete anything further on this matter added here.

You may however use my user talk to alert me to new discussion added to that talk page. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on talk page before making a major revert. Do you have a source for your claim regarding theodicy? All I can see refers to the problem of evil. Finally, why did you revert every change I had made and explained?Ht686rg90 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that rather than 'revert' changes, I restored an article that had been taken out of existence. As it had been removed from existence, there's no particular reason to favour one version over the other, apart from when one is more comprehensive (ie. hasn't had half its content removed) than the other. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, discuss on talk before making major reverts. Do not delete every change I had made and explained with any explanation.Ht686rg90 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware of the

WP:3RR rule. If you make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours you may be reported and blocked from editing.Ht686rg90 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You made the first revert so please do not continue reverting so you do not get blocked. Discuss on the talk page first do avoid edit wars. Thanks.Ht686rg90 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find I only reverted to that particular version once. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particular version does not matter. You have now made 3 reverts. One more to any prior version, partial or complete revert, and you have violated the rule. I will report you.Ht686rg90 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But please, discuss on talk page first. If you have any sources for your claims regarding what theodicy is, then present them on talk and let us discuss.Ht686rg90 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you refuse to discuss your claims, refuse to give sources, and continue with edit warring I have reported you.Ht686rg90 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring, just editing. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that you have reverted

WP:AN3 and promise to wait for consensus for your proposed change, you may be able to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been

edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here

are the reverts in question.

Alas, too late William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four edits listed is remotely identical, and therefore they are not reversions. please see below for details, as they won't appear here for some reason.

In fact, this block would set the precedent that once someone has blanked an article, any subsequent edit whatsoever of any kind to a restored version of the article counts as a reversion. This would mean that the 3RR rule prohibits people from making any edit of any kind whatsoever, if another editor keeps blanking the article; how can that possibly serve any point? Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made four groups of successive edits on May 4. Each time, the result of your edits was to change the article from a 47-byte version (containing just the redirect) to a much longer version. There was nothing sacred about the 47-byte version, but it was your repeated undoing of it (more than three times in one day) that broke

]

So you are basically saying that if anyone keeps blanking an article, no-one can restore it? How is anyone supposed to edit an article that someone keeps blanking - its impossible to make any edits without 'undoing' their actions? This would appear to legitimise deleting proper articles without going through the formal deletion process. Perhaps that is the case, but wouldn't it be mentioned on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page if it was? And if it is the case, what's to stop anyone just repeatedly blanking other articles, like Fish or Moral relativism? Anthony on Stilts (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, what we are ALL saying is that the proper way to effect change at Wikipedia is through

discussion of issues when they arise. The wrong way to effect change is to repeatedly force others to accept your decision on an article by sheer force of will. You were making changes. Others contested those changes. It is your job to convince people that your changes, which are being contested, are needed in the article. You do that via discussion, not by trying to wear people down by doing them over and over. And, yes, someone else at Wikipedia broke a rule once. I am sure of it. If, perchance, they did not get blocked for it, it has no bearing on your actions. You alone are in control of your actions, and you alone bear the consequences of those actions. Attempting to steer the discussion to the actions of other people is only deflection, and has no bearing on your actions. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to convince administrators that a) you understand why you were rightly blocked and b) you will no longer do that anymore. I see no evidence that either is the case here. Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)}}[reply

]

Details

none of the four edits listed is remotely identical. Here are comparative diffs - edit 1 to edit 2, edit 2 to edit 3, edit 3 to edit 4.

Ht686rg90 is abusing the 3RR rule in order to delete an article ([3], [4], [5], [6]) without going through the proper policy requirements - eg.

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion

Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

none of the four edits listed is remotely identical - I suggest you read

WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm glad you agree. Therefore continuing to block me would mean that the 3RR rule prohibits people from making any edit of any kind whatsoever, if another editor keeps blanking the article; how can that possibly serve any point? Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely were reverting and your only attempt at discussion was one edit summary, plus, possibly, the article contents. When someone challenges your actions you should not simply ignore them and proceed editing at your pleasure, you need to discuss and seek consensus. Mangojuice^talk 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bnei hazir

I Chronic.: ch. 24, v. 15 Neh.: ch. 10, v. 21 Is it all that you needed ? Hope&Act3! (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bnei hazir

I Chronic.: ch. 24, v. 15 Neh.: ch. 10, v. 21 Is it all that you needed ? Hope&Act3! (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah

I can't see any reason not to just change it to a redirect. It's got no references, so we aren't really losing anything.

talk) 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd prefer to go through the proper deletion process, someone might object, or maybe they have a good reason for it existing (not that I can see one) - its best to let them speak. Waiting a while can't do any harm. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can take content forks to AfD "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate". You could argue that this name is not a likely search string. Are you planning to take it to AfD?

talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I was thinking that. I haven't quite worked out what I should put there, yet. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Warning

Hi, just to remind you that you just crossed the 3 revert line. I was careful to be one revert behind you, since you reverted Back2Back2Back first. Hence any more reverts by you on Saint George will call for a block on you. Cheers History2007 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christians in Sueton

I reverted your statement, since Sueton actually mentions Christians, not in the context of Claudius and the impulsor Chrestus (which is indeed Chresto in Codex Memmianus), but in the context of Nero's good deeds./Wilient (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary: Garden Tomb

Hi, this edit [7] does not seem justified by the source you gave, which I have looked up here:[8]. Is there another source that you were referring to? (I have just rewritten the paragraph, but appropriate sources would be welcome.) - Fayenatic (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Persecution by early Christians has been nominated for discussion

Category:Persecution by early Christians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]